linux-kernel - Re: [PATCH RFC] PM / Hibernate: no kernel_power_off when pm_power

lists.openwall.net		lists / announce owl-users owl-dev john-users john-dev passwdqc-users yescrypt popa3d-users / oss-security kernel-hardening musl sabotage tlsify passwords / crypt-dev xvendor / Bugtraq Full-Disclosure linux-kernel linux-netdev linux-ext4 linux-hardening linux-cve-announce PHC
Open Source and information security mailing list archives

Hash Suite: Windows password security audit tool. GUI, reports in PDF.

[<prev] [next>] [<thread-prev] [thread-next>] [day] [month] [year] [list]

Date:	Tue, 15 Apr 2014 23:18:32 +0200
From:	Pavel Machek <pavel@....cz>
To:	Russell King - ARM Linux <linux@....linux.org.uk>
Cc:	Sebastian Capella <sebastian.capella@...aro.org>,
	One Thousand Gnomes <gnomes@...rguk.ukuu.org.uk>,
	Linux Kernel <linux-kernel@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linux-pm@...r.kernel.org" <linux-pm@...r.kernel.org>,
	"linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org" <linaro-kernel@...ts.linaro.org>,
	Len Brown <len.brown@...el.com>,
	"Rafael J. Wysocki" <rjw@...ysocki.net>,
	Ezequiel Garcia <ezequiel.garcia@...e-electrons.com>
Subject: Re: [PATCH RFC] PM / Hibernate: no kernel_power_off when
 pm_power_off NULL

On Tue 2014-04-15 21:54:53, Russell King - ARM Linux wrote:
> On Tue, Apr 15, 2014 at 11:34:52AM -0700, Sebastian Capella wrote:
> > Ping..
> > 
> > There appears to be disagreement on the correct path to take on this.
> > 
> > Pavel and Alan recommend that arm's machine_power_off shall never return
> > 
> > Russell suggests hibernation be modified to handle machine_power_off
> > returning; that x86 architecture (and others as well) can have
> > machine_power_off returning.
> > 
> > Discussions available at the links below:
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/25/554  -- linux-arm discussion
> > https://lkml.org/lkml/2014/3/20/649  -- linux-pm discussion
> > 
> > Should I continue with the original hibernation patch from the
> > linux-pm discussion?
> > 
> > Does anyone have any response to Russel's commentsl?
> 
> What I'm basically saying is that I see no reason for ARM to do something
> different to what x86 does.
> 
> What is pretty clear to me is that ARM is compatible with x86, which is
> compatible with kernel/reboot.c, and it's the hibernate code which is
> the odd one out.

I'm pretty sure the original code did not return. Anyway, the best
solution, given how many platforms are out there, would be to

a) document that it should not return

b) fix hibernation to handle the returning case, anyway.

									Pavel
-- 
(english) http://www.livejournal.com/~pavelmachek
(cesky, pictures) http://atrey.karlin.mff.cuni.cz/~pavel/picture/horses/blog.html
--
To unsubscribe from this list: send the line "unsubscribe linux-kernel" in
the body of a message to majordomo@...r.kernel.org
More majordomo info at  http://vger.kernel.org/majordomo-info.html
Please read the FAQ at  http://www.tux.org/lkml/